VILASRAO NARAYANRAO JAGTAP Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
LAWS(ET)-2013-12-4
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Decided on December 23,2013

Vilasrao Narayanrao Jagtap Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Shri.Vilasrao Narayanrao Jagtap filed a Petition against MSEDCL on 7 November 2013 under Section 142 of Electricity Act, 2003, for non compliance of provisions of Regulation No. 15 of MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005.
(2.) The prayers in the petition are as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) The Petitioner submitted in his Petition as below, 1. The Petitioner stated that, the Respondent is duty bound to issue and recover the energy bills as per the tariff decided by the Commission and the Regulations of the Commission. 2. The Petitioner stated that, he has observed that the Respondent is issuing the bills to its agricultural consumers without following proper procedures by extending their load without the consumer application. 3. The Petitioner felt the action of the Respondent as non compliance of the Orders, Directives and Regulations of the Commission. He also stated that it is cheating of agricultural consumers of the Jat taluka. He stated that it is a criminal offence. 4. The Petitioner briefed the Provision 15 of the MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 in which the code of billing and disconnection is mentioned. He further mentioned that there are 123 villages in the Jat taluka which are always facing drought. 5. The Petitioner mentioned that the Opponents are issuing the energy bills to the unmetered agricultural consumers by extending their connected load. He stated that the consumers received the bills for 5HP instead of 3 HP or 7.5 HP instead of 5 HP. 6. The Petitioner further stated that the load extension without application from the consumer is illegal and it cannot collect additional revenue from the consumers in such cases. The Respondent collected the bills illegally. 7. The Petitioner stated that the bills of the consumers, who protested against it are corrected. He mentioned table of five consumers to show the corrected bills by the Respondent. Sr. Consumer Village Sanction Extended Bill raised Corrected No Name load load ( Rs) bill (HP) (HP) (Rs.) 1 Hasan Dada Umrani 5 7.5 8430 2620 Jatkar 2 Siddheshwar Belunkhi 5 7.5 8570 4070 Baburao Chavan 3 Sidram Khojanwadi 5 7.5 12950 3170 Guruning Karoli 4 Limbaji Jat 5 7.5 7550 4860 Ganpati Mali 5 Hajiso Umrani 5 7.5 8720 2770 Dadaso Jatkar Total 46220 17490 8. The Petitioner stated that the Commission has jurisdiction under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the non compliance of the directions of the Commission. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.